President George Bush Kicking A$$

[Christians4LessGvt]

It aint brain surgery:

Shah = Unelected, did not support or export international terrorism
Mullahs = Unelected, support terror, want to point nukes at us, and kill our soldiers

Any Questions?

[Rich]

>>Any Questions?<<

Yes. Was the a Shah a dictator?

Let's spend a few dozen more posts on that ... 

[Plane]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.

Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.

Wait one , didn't she mention her connection with some Iranians?

Some Iranians did like the Shah , this is a quiet group right now , but how do we know how many they amount to?

[Cynthia]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.

Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.

Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.

My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.

Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the  آية الله----(Ayatollah.)

[Plane]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.

Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.

Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.

My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.

Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the  آية الله----(Ayatollah.)

Ayatollah is a church office isn't it?

How does a person become one?

I suppose that the Ayatollahs do not see much need for seaparation between church and state, but what was the cause of animosity between the Shah and the Mosque?

[Cynthia]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.

Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.

Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.

My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.

Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the  آية الله----(Ayatollah.)

Ayatollah is a church office isn't it?

How does a person become one?

I suppose that the Ayatollahs do not see much need for seaparation between church and state, but what was the cause of animosity between the Shah and the Mosque?

Khomeini was called "THE AYATOLLAH"....among Persians in my "circle" some 30 years ago. Here's a picture window of the outcome of the animosity.



Even while attempting to put in place the institutions of the new order, the revolutionaries turned their attention to bringing to trial and punishing members of the former regime whom they considered responsible for carrying out political repression, plundering the country's wealth, implementing damaging economic policies, and allowing foreign exploitation of Iran. A revolutionary court set to work almost immediately in the school building in Tehran where Ayatollah Khomeini had set up his headquarters. Revolutionary courts were established in provincial centers shortly thereafter. The Tehran court passed death sentences on four of the shah's (Mohammad Reza Shah) generals on February 16, 1979; all four were executed by firing squad on the roof of the building housing Ayatollah Khomeini's headquarters. More executions, of military and police officers, SAVAK agents, cabinet ministers, Majlis deputies, and officials of the shah's regime, followed on an almost daily basis

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_revolution/revolution_and_iran_after1979_1.php

[Amianthus]

Ayatollah is a church office isn't it?

How does a person become one?

Actually, the "Ayatollah" is a title reserved for a unique position in the Iranian government. Normally, in the Iranian government, there is a President (head of the secular government) and a council of Mullahs (head of the religious government). When a Mullah is elected President, he assumes the title of Ayatollah, and is therefore head of both portions of the government.

Ayatollah is also a title used for high clerics in Shi'a, but is used this way in a different context.

[_JS]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.

Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.

Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.

My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.

Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the  آية الله----(Ayatollah.)

Did you tell these folks that the original revolution was led by the Iranian middle class of merchants? By 1979 the Shah was very hated in Iran. There were mass demonstrations and shopkeepers and small businessmen were amongst those who loathed the man.

I'm not saying Khoemeni was great. That's a strawman and you may sacrifice it all you like. But the Shah was hated, and was a tyrant as well as a murderer. There is little doubt of that, and the people who'd like to have him back are the very few who profited from his wealth.

[Cynthia]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.

Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.

Unfortunately, those Iranians who would have welcomed the Shah of Iran were killed during the revolution.

My ex husband's father was one of them. He was an Admiral in the Iranian Navy.
Many of our friends who went back home to Tehran, were also killed, sadly.

Now who is arrogant?
Come on JS...
Most people living in a free world or not, want nothing more than to live. They were swiftly killed by the  آية الله----(Ayatollah.)

Did you tell these folks that the original revolution was led by the Iranian middle class of merchants? By 1979 the Shah was very hated in Iran. There were mass demonstrations and shopkeepers and small businessmen were amongst those who loathed the man.

I'm not saying Khoemeni was great. That's a strawman and you may sacrifice it all you like. But the Shah was hated, and was a tyrant as well as a murderer. There is little doubt of that, and the people who'd like to have him back are the very few who profited from his wealth.

Well, Js one man who is "hated" isn't equal to another man who is feared, especially if there aint much a person can do to control either outcome. It's not like there was a democratic vote on the issue.
Indeed, JS< Khomeini was much worse. Remember the story; It Could Be Worse" ? Well, those of whom you speak had no real clue of how bad it was going to get. (The frog in the hot water analogy.)
Follow my tune to the ends of the earth.....I know you want to. You hate, afterall, right?
ahhh, GOT Ya. 
Iranians did not have the freedom to chose whom to "hate more" or less like we do in this country.

Only those who were able to understand the reality of the situation --those who were living outside the Perian culture---on American soil at the time, knew that things were actually going to be better under the regime that was so "hated:".
Women were at least able to speak up, find a voice back then, JS..... albeit one baby step at a time..but it was progess at it's slowest and best . . of that I know for a fact.


Sometimes all of this  makes me wonder just how much we really understand in terms of the depth of "help" the US has given in the direction of the Iraqis with this "war". I would love to ask Iraqi-American citizens how they truly believe their country is faring. .

FOr some reason Americans have one of two extreme trains of thought;
a) Oh,those poor bastards in the "other" world---they have not seen the "light" if they can not or will not grasp democracy as it has been served to them on a gold patter !
b) Well, of course every nation, every culture, has every right to do what they feel is best for themselves. Why interfere?.....let a country be.

Ok, well, they got what they DIDN'T SEE COMING....just like Hiter, imo.
The interests of the Iranian  free thinking (on the verge of understanding democracy and what it felt like to be free in so many ways) instead traveled...no dive bombed back centuries in exchange for that poor bad ass apple(the Shah) that folks hated and rallied against.

[Plane]

I'm not saying Khoemeni was great. That's a strawman and you may sacrifice it all you like. But the Shah was hated, and was a tyrant as well as a murderer. There is little doubt of that, and the people who'd like to have him back are the very few who profited from his wealth.

You may not be saying that Koumani was great , but Khoemeni is what we got as an alternative to the Shah, I think examineing the alternatives is fair , not strawman building.

When I was in Navy Training there were Iranian trainees all over the place , the Shah really did want literacy and practical education to flourish that isn't a few people.

[Xavier_Onassis]

When I was in Navy Training there were Iranian trainees all over the place , the Shah really did want literacy and practical education to flourish that isn't a few people.

===============================================
Iran was a Third-World country, way below Turkey both culturally and educationally. The Shah and Kissinger both shared the concept that Iran would be the regional dominant power in the Middle East, and if not a best buddy of Israel, at least neutral towards Israel. In return for US arms (which were not gifts, but purchased at retail prices), the Shah was recognized as the regional strongman and bets ally of the US in the region.

Although the Shah was trusted by the Americans, regular Iranians were not. Very often often, those Iranian pilots could not go up without an American or an Israeli with them in the cockpit. Savak was taught torture techniques by the CIA, and many of the spy techniques used to keep the Shah in power were American devices, operated by Iranians trained by Americans.

The basis of Iranian-American cooperation was something like what LBJ meant when he said "If you have them by the balls, there hearts and minds will follow". The CIA had the Shah by the balls, and he followed quite well.
The Shah had cancer of the colon. He was too regal for an Iranian doctor to examine his rectum, but the CIA knew about this way before the Shah did, and knew he would die of it, because they detected it too late. They built a special bathroom for the sole purpose of obtaining urine and fecal samples, once the Shah showed several symptoms of this disease.

 I wonder if the CIA has a special award for specimen collecting, and if so, I would like to see the logo on it.

The major difference between the Shah, other than religion, was that the Shah was chosen to lead Iran by the CIA and MI-6, and the Ayatollah was chosen by fellow Iranians. Neither was chosen democratically. There was probably no moment in which the Shah could have been electred in a fair election, but I think that Kholmeini might have been electable at some point. Not that it matters, because neither of these guys would ever have allowed a free and fair election. This has never been much of an Iranian tradition.

[Plane]

When I was in Navy Training there were Iranian trainees all over the place , the Shah really did want literacy and practical education to flourish that isn't a few people.

===============================================
Iran was a Third-World country, way below Turkey both culturally and educationally. The Shah and Kissinger both shared the concept that Iran would be the regional dominant power in the Middle East, and if not a best buddy of Israel, at least neutral towards Israel. In return for US arms (which were not gifts, but purchased at retail prices), the Shah was recognized as the regional strongman and bets ally of the US in the region.

Although the Shah was trusted by the Americans, regular Iranians were not. Very often often, those Iranian pilots could not go up without an American or an Israeli with them in the cockpit. Savak was taught torture techniques by the CIA, and many of the spy techniques used to keep the Shah in power were American devices, operated by Iranians trained by Americans.

The basis of Iranian-American cooperation was something like what LBJ meant when he said "If you have them by the balls, there hearts and minds will follow". The CIA had the Shah by the balls, and he followed quite well.
The Shah had cancer of the colon. He was too regal for an Iranian doctor to examine his rectum, but the CIA knew about this way before the Shah did, and knew he would die of it, because they detected it too late. They built a special bathroom for the sole purpose of obtaining urine and fecal samples, once the Shah showed several symptoms of this disease.

 I wonder if the CIA has a special award for specimen collecting, and if so, I would like to see the logo on it.

The major difference between the Shah, other than religion, was that the Shah was chosen to lead Iran by the CIA and MI-6, and the Ayatollah was chosen by fellow Iranians. Neither was chosen democratically. There was probably no moment in which the Shah could have been electred in a fair election, but I think that Kholmeini might have been electable at some point. Not that it matters, because neither of these guys would ever have allowed a free and fair election. This has never been much of an Iranian tradition.

Torture ....

Before Bush?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The CIA taught torture techniques for a long time, then in the 1970's there were the Church Committee hearings, and they were ordered to stop, and law were passed, which Juniorbush and Cheney have proclaimed unnecessary and deterrents to fighting terrorism.

All this may have occurred before you were stationed on this planet.

I do not believe that the Shah was paying to have pilots trained in order to provide literacy. Flying planes may require literacy, but there are far cheaper ways to provide it.

I doubt that the US had many people capable of teaching literacy in Farsi, seeing as how it is written with an entirely different alphabet in a language few Americans understand.

[Cynthia]

Iran was a Third-World country, way below Turkey both culturally and educationally.


I am not clear on your meaning here, XO. How can one culture be "below" another? I can understand Third-World struggling to compete with the West, etc. But....
The culture of Persia is vast,  rich and very old (old in a good way;). Culturally speaking, How can you say that any nation or culture of people is " above, on or below" a "level" of some sort?

 Heck, The American culture can't hold a candle to Persian in terms of years in. I would consider American culture to be younger, not as rich in some ways as Turkish Culture or Iranian culture.


 Persians came to the United States, (many landing in Michigan) in the late 60's early 70's for the purpose of aquiring an education.
Do you have any facts or proof to back up your statement?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not clear on your meaning here, XO. How can one culture be "below" another? I can understand Third-World struggling to compete with the West, etc. But....
The culture of Persia is vast,  rich and very old (old in a good way;). Culturally speaking, How can you say that any nation or culture of people is " above, on or below" a "level" of some sort?

==========================================================
I meant that the literacy level of Iran was quite a bit below that of Turkey, and that a smaller percentage of the population had access to that great Persian culture of yore. I imagine that superstition among the country people was higher, and far fewer people had access to medicine, the media and education.An Iranian friend of mine told me that it was not that until after the Shah that the peasants on his family's land could actually leave. They were serfs, and were bought and sold with the land.

I agree that Persia has a rich culture, but during the time of the Shah, it was mostly for the elite.